Why do Indians hate Ghandi so much?

His retardation essentially ensured that the British Raj would not be given independence as a single unified state, but rather as two mutually loathed enemies.

and out of nowhere, we have a british imperialist...

is that seriously everyones beef with him though? that he fought for independence from the British? i thought that was a good thing?

>british imperialist
Not at all. The Raj was doomed for sure, but by being an uncooperative prat, he ensured that we turned to Nehru, who promised to fully back the WW2 effort. As a result, Nehru got his dream of a Muslim state in Pakistan, and Gandhi fucked over South Asia forever.

The user you quoted is fucking wrong.

By the time the brits got around to actually partitioning India, gandhi didn't have political power at all. He was nearly irrelevant. The major powers that were wanting for a partition were the Muslim league and the INC.

>wanting a cancerous and retarded horde of punjabis with their delusions in your country.

Nehru did the right thing.

>not keeping the punjabis as a political party rather than another state pointing nukes at you
m8....

From what I remember Gandhi wrote that his ideal model for India would be one that resembles some sort of agrarian-socialist state where its basically a whole heap of small scale self-sufficient villages with a minimal government that provides services such as healthcare, industrial machinery (tractors basically) and universities. He did want to do away with the caste system in that people were not to be born into a society stratified on a religious basis but he wanted to maintain the varna system which is essentially the same as people will work and uphold the traditions and customs of their family and family profession. There was some form of freedom in this society as people might be able to attend the universities and so on but for the most part it wouldn't be feasible for everyone.

The British Raj was never a unified state before colonization. Even today it's a miracle that modern India hasn't torn itself apart.

So this Nehru guy introduced Islam after Ghandi was assassinated? I'm sorry, I guess I'm woefully ignorant of Indian history. Was he a fundamentalist? And I'm just confirming this but Ghandi was a hindu right?

You have to be 11 years old or older to post here.

Ahh I see. So he wasn't necessarily trying to abolish the caste system entirely, just reform it?

Yeah well shocker, Indian history isn't exactly a priority in the American school system. We get broad strokes, but apparently those broad strokes are "the west romanticizing Ghandi and ignoring his dark side".

>American education
Alright, look.

Britain's largest company, the British East India Company manages to more or less colonize this massive chunk of land in South Asia, consisting of Pakistan, India, and Burma. Muslims had lived in the area for centuries, but got taken over just the same. Eventually the BEIC fucks up majorly in the Sepoy revolt of 1857, and Britain formally seizes control of India. Fast forward 90 years, and British rule is falling apart because of how broke we've gotten since WW2. And during WW2, Gandhi started a campaign of resistance to the war effort, in effect sabotaging the Allies and helping the Axis. So we lock him up, but this Nehru guy steps in and says he will fully support the war effort. He does, and after the war we reward him. Seeing that the Raj is irredeemably fucked and completely untenable, we give him his own state in Pakistan, screwing Gandhi in the process.

>dark side
and yet here's what african american leaders had to say on meeting gandhi,
crossculturalsolidarity.com/african-americans-make-contact-with-gandhi-the-1930s/

> “Never in my life have I been a part of the that kind of examination: persistent, pragmatic questions about American Negroes.”

I see. His resistance of British occupation meant resisting the allied powers in WWII. But I guess I'm confused when you say "war effort", or rather that Nehru claimed he'd "support the war effort". Does that mean he came out in opposition of independence from the British Raj?

>he came out in opposition of independence from the British Raj
No, they both wanted that. But Gandhi wanted it RIGHT GODDAMN NOW, even though the loss of India could have cost Britain the war. Nehru was willing to play ball.

Basically, the person who wanted to totally abolish the caste system was Bhimrao Ambedkar who I think deserves just as much, if not more, recognition than Gandhi as he was actually born into an untouchable caste but worked hard, earned multiple a PhD's and (I believe) wrote the constitution for India. They differed mostly on the issue of accountability because Gandhi believed the caste system worked if it could be purged of its discriminatory connotations thus preserving Hindu tradition and Hindu primacy within India. Ambedkar wanted to have the Dalits form their own political blocs and himself converted to Buddhism (which lead to the untouchable classes converting en masse to Buddhism and drastically changing their identity in India) as he saw it as a means to realise proper emancipation for the untouchables from what he believed would always be a Hindu oppression. This has been a real rough run down on the two and I dont think it really touches on them both enough so I encourage you to read up what you can for yourself. Nonetheless, I side with Ambedkar on this issue, I think Gandhi's ideals blinded him to the cruel nature of most people and politics.

OHHHH I see. He wanted radical change overnight, even if tanked the allied cause. That makes much more sense. So in a modern context, is that what Indians mean when they imply they don't like him? I guess its realistically a combination of all this stuff.

oh please.
The INC led by nehru was instrumental in boycotting public support for ww2. If anything the Muslim league was the one largely canvassing for the allies during the second world war with the promise of an islamic homeland in INdia.

>BR Ambedkar wrote the constitution
Fucking wrong. He was the chairman of the constitution making body. He didn't write it despite what moronic dalits WE WUers like to believe.

And no, most dalits are hindu in India and the Ambedkar buddhist movement is just a meme.

Bingo.

Ah sorry, I think I confused Nehru and Jinnah

He lost the Indus River Valley for the Hindus and also thinks that people should show love and peace to Muslims even in the face of terror and when it could result in death and loss of Hindu temples and such. People don't like that. My friend who is a Hindu has some other reasons that I am forgetting.

Do you guys have any reading recommendations? I'm kind of filling in the blanks with wikipedia right now.

yeah. big difference.

One thing that they neglect to teach in high school history in India is that the 1942 quit india movement ended in Gandhi losing a shit ton of public support. In 1943 the bengal famine hit eastern India hard and the war effort was helpful in providing meaningful employment to a lot of Indian families. At the same time SC Bose and the INA were becoming far more well known in India due to Japanese radio broadcasts.

While limited in actual military value, their propaganda effect was pretty huge for the nation. The Red Fort Trials ended up uniting british India one final time before the partition.

Here is Godse's last letter, Ghandi's assasin, before he was executed. He lists all the reasons why he killed him. This serves as a list of why most Hindus hate him.

Oops forgot the link

docs.google.com/document/d/1qFsSho6YFpkNRFjrUdn0sjV_pI_jfUyamVtn1hsbOAM/edit?hl=en_US

>most
RSS =/= all hindus.

wait a second.

I'm reading the wikipedia page for the "Quit India Movement" and its starting to imply that Britain was opposed to Indian representation in their own political structure, just like during the American revolution..

perfect! thats just what I needed. thanks for posting it

Edgy teenager phase mostly. As a child you grow up learning about these leaders and see them as infallible icons of human virtue. Then you grow up, read some more and realize they were people with vices just like everyone else and now suddenly you're on a crusade to educate the plebs on how they are totally not the saints they are portrayed as. A little overreaction to be quite desu.

Godse's rationale for hating Gandhi is basically the consensus for all people who hate Gandhi or even moderately dislike him. While what you say is true, I never implied that all Hindus were Hindu Nationalists.

godse ended up ossifying gandhi's place in Indian history by making him an unassailable martyr.

Same reason Westerners today hate SJW'S, people hate it when nice people are on the right side of history.

How does this relate to what we are talking about?

Nah, not really.
docs.google.com/document/d/1qFsSho6YFpkNRFjrUdn0sjV_pI_jfUyamVtn1hsbOAM/edit?hl=en_US

wtf I love Gandhi now

It is now acceptable to fly to Thailand and fuck ladyboys, that period of history is already over.

> chopping off the dick of six years old and putting them on hormones is the right side of history.

>pedophile
>balding
>manlet
>glasses
>racist
Is he, dare I say /ourguy/?

only everything.

was he really racist? and a pedophile?

He was racist insofar as nearly everyone in that time period was. /pol/ for example would consider him an indecisiive faggot because he didn't have their ebin "kill all da niggers" mentality while tumblr would have thrown a bitchfit because he didn't consider bantus as equal to indians.

He was a massive angloboo and found it insulting that Indians were lumped together with negroes.

>Same reason Westerners today hate SJW'S, people hate it when nice people are on the right side of history.

SJW's are on the right side of history as much as Hitler was.

India could have rebelled in 1920 and she might have won due to her greater manpower, equal weaponry, and the fact that Britain had just come out of a deadly war, but Gandhi's influence was so strong that he swayed her not to. Britain actually loved him for this. This also would have prevented the suffering and looting that happened during WWII, which would have left India in a better position than they ended up in. Furthermore, the Indus River would probably still be a part of India. Also a big component of the Hindu religion is fighting back against evil powers. Gandhi was basically saying that Hindu scripture was wrong and that Krishna and Lord Ram, for example, were bad people for fighting back against injustice.

These are all the reasons I am aware of for why people dislike Gandhi. Below is Godse's last speech. Godse is Gandhi's assassin. He puts his position very eloquently and tells us many of the reasons why people disliked him.

docs.google.com/document/d/1qFsSho6YFpkNRFjrUdn0sjV_pI_jfUyamVtn1hsbOAM/edit?hl=en_US

>anything compares to Hitler
we've got to stop relying on comparing shit to hitler. its getting out of hand. hillary isn't hitler, trump isn't hitler, SJWs aren't hitler, no one is Hitler. love yourselves more than this.

bantus?

I am not really an expert on this but from what i understand it comes down to a few things
1. Ghandi wanted Hindus and Muslims to get along in one nation, despite the fact that neither party wanted anything to do with each other and there was massive tension between both sides. This tension still exists today, and many Hindus were pissed that Ghandi was so Muslim friendly.
2. Ghandi's arrest after the great salt march allowed Jinnah to negotiate with the British to rob India of the Indus River Valley and create Pakistan.
3. Despite preaching about civil rights and all that he still had no intention of removing the caste system. The caste system is like American Jim Crow on steroids.

And maybe you should stop saying people "hate" SJWs, and use cringe-worthy clichés like "right side of history".

not that user but godwins law makes you look like a fucking faggot in every scenario. theres never a time when comparing something to hitler actually makes you look smart. it makes you a fucking sensationalist.

>re-appropriated land for Pakistan
OHHH so thats what "stealing the Indus River Valley" means.

Except when people actually act like brownshirts.

...

sorry.
Zulus.

>salt march
>stealing the IVT

The salt march was in the 1920s. India became partitioned 20 years later after the march.

Oh I see what you're saying. I thought that word might've been referencing one of the castes in India. (wondering now if i used that word right)

Not an argument.

>on the right side of history.

>lose horribly

quality b8 m8

caste is a pretty complicated system that the british lumped down to one thing because it was easy for census takers to do that.

we weren't having one.

You're right. You were just autistically screeching.

Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the judge of everyone and everything;"

I mean I wasnt expecting high praise but wow I had no idea Ghandi was so totalitarian in his approach.

yeah.
He overturned an internal party election when his protege nehru lost to bose.

Jesus christ no wonder everyone doesn't like him.

Woww, this guy REALLY hates muslims. I mean you guys mentioned that tensions are still high between hindus and muslims but wow. Is this a minority opinion? Like obviously other people aren't as extreme as he is...or are they?

both sides are becoming radicalized by the day.
Muslims still think that they were all arab mughals and hindus think that they will become glorious once they remove all the muslims.

>these links are blowing my mind
"“The African must remember the colored Christ. Preachers did not understand Christ until taught by my Master, Mahatma Gandhi. Jesus, remember, was not a white man, but an Asiatic like me.” By emphasizing that Jesus was “an Asiatic like me,” Indians sought to emphasize a shared spiritual heritage with black Americans. "

So really...it was a cult. He led a cult and his followers saw him as Jesus?

gandhi was a charismatic individual.

And at that time Jesus in common western discourse was a largely western concept, both in depiction and in relation to western civilization.

Remember that the british went around the world saying that they were spreading the civilization of christ to godless pagans and Indians and you had plenty of western missionaries working in india spreading their version of christianity with it's all or nothig approach.

"radical" are you serious?! Are you guys fighting in the streets or something?

Radical because for most of the time most muslims in india were following a syncretic local version of islam with the worship of local sages or pirs along with hindus at the same shrine.

Going from that to "WE WUZ ARABS AND MUGHALS AND SHEEIT" is increasing radicalization.

The current ruling party of India is the Bharatiya Janata party who are Hindu nationalists who made their name in Indian politics in 1992 when they destroyed a 16th century mosque, which had been built by the Mughals on a Hindu holy site. I am not informed enough to know whether there is much street violence today, but war rhetoric has been ramped up in recent months by both sides.

he persuaded most indians to be non violent and not join indian national army. But the idea of non violence is utterly retarded because it depends on the occupator having morals, which never happened in history and never will. The brits just left india because their military was exhausted after ww2 and another uprising like axis supported indian national army would just lead to destruction of resources in addition to defeat.

tl;dr he was retarded and had a daisy worldview, much like today's feminists in western countries.

actually later on in his life he advocated celibacy and abstinence from sexual pleasure, and when people accused him of not adhering to his own principles he slept in the same bed with his nieces. Now in a lot of poorer population there arent separate rooms for everyone so people just sleep under the fan in the main room even to this day, like entire families.

many prominent schools of hinduism argue non-violence as the greatest virtue one can show. in one very large sect, the monks are not allowed to fight back even if they are being beaten to death once they have taken their vows, and this sect is extremely prominent in gujrat, the state gandhi is from. Even today, these monks exist and also once they're initiated they cant look or talk to women. Obviously most of india doesnt follow this school of thought and believed he showed too much weakness. I respect him for standing up to his philosophy even in the face of death

“Victims of child marriage, thousands of girls vanish from view at the early age of twelve. They change into house-wives!”

actually gandhi's non-cooperation movement was a big part of why they left. talks of seriously leaving were being held in the 30s.

"It is my painful duty to have to record here my marriage at the age of thirteen. As I see the youngsters of the same age about me who are under my care, and think of my own marriage, I am inclined to pity myself and to congratulate them on having escaped my lot. I can see no moral argument in support of such a preposterously early marriage."

I do realise that if the Indians hate Gandhi it's not because of the following, but:
>Gandhi believed Indian women who were raped lost their value as human beings. He argued that fathers could be justified in killing daughters who had been sexually assaulted for the sake of family and community honour
>“I have always held that it is physically impossible to violate a woman against her will. The outrage takes place only when she gives way to fear or does not realize her moral strength. If she cannot meet the assailant’s physical might, her purity will give her the strength to die before he succeeds in violating her…It is my firm conviction that a fearless woman, who knows that her purity is her best shield can never be dishonored. However beastly the man, he will bow in shame before the flame of her dazzling purity.”
>he believed menstruation was a manifestation of the distortion of a woman’s soul by her sexuality.
During Gandhi’s time as a dissident in South Africa, he discovered a male youth had been harassing two of his female followers. Gandhi responded by personally cutting the girls’ hair off, to ensure the “sinner’s eye” was “sterilised”. Gandhi boasted of the incident in his writings, pushing the message to all Indians that women should carry responsibility for sexual attacks upon them. Such a legacy still lingers.
Also, he was a racist bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34265882

not really, he had no part to play in those talks, he just actually delayed their leaving by dividing the people in india and hijacking congress so that bose doesnt get his way.

>Despised Rapists
>Was a Rapist and a Pedophile
Really gets my Zhi zapping.

If everyone from Muhammad to Gandhi was a pedophile the word has lost all meaning.

huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-jackson-stockpiled-child-porn-animal-torture-photos-according-to-newly-surfaced-report_us_5769644fe4b0a75709b7d847

Allen and Farrow engaged in a heated and emotionally damaging custody battle after they broke up in January 1992, during which time Farrow alleged that he once sexually abused their daughter, which he has denied.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen#Sex_abuse_allegations

In 1977, after a photo shoot in Los Angeles, Polanski was arrested for the rape of 13-year-old Samantha Geimer and pleaded guilty to the charge of statutory rape.[12]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski

>slept with some bitches

Actually yeah, exactly. He slept with them but refused to bang them. The guy was a madman, he wanted to get to the point that women would no longer arouse him. So he slept with women with the intent of becoming flaccid. All in the name of Satyagraha, he wanted to be "enlightened" more appropriately discovering truth-force.

>Communist China abolished the caste system
>caste system in China
wut